ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Patient Experience Survey in a Corneal Service Conducted by Remote Consultation.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Telemedicine in Eye Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of Patient & Physician Perspectives.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn ophthalmic remote consultation clinic was implemented due to the COVID-19 pandemic for stable patients under the corneal service in a district general hospital in Cheshire, UK. Patients were reviewed either by video or telephone consultation. The purpose of this survey was to assess patient satisfaction with this service.
methodsConsecutive patients who were seen by remote consultation between September 2020 and November 2020 were identified. Approval for the survey was gained from the hospital Patient Experience and Survey department. A telephone survey was conducted between 4 and 8 weeks after the initial patient appointment. Data were obtained for patient demographic information, appointment details and patient satisfaction with their appointment, including preference for subsequent appointments and open feedback.
resultsEighty-four remote consultations were identified and 51 (60.7%) patients completed the survey: 48 (94.1%) reported satisfaction with their remote consultation; 36 (70.5%) reported satisfaction for a subsequent remote consultation; and 33 (64.7%) patients reported they preferred being seen remotely rather than face-to-face. Qualitative data on patients' thoughts about the service could be categorised into 4 themes: satisfaction with the interaction and service, conveniency, lack of clinical examination and satisfaction with the service given the current pandemic circumstances.
conclusionThis survey has shown that patients were satisfied with their remote consultation and the majority thought it was an acceptable method of consultation. This also allowed patients to continue being seen during a period of COVID-19 lockdown and reduce patient footfall through the hospital. Overall feedback indicated very high levels of patient satisfaction with this service.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.